LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9022, 7 April 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Judge's Chambers. Friday. [Before Hie Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Probate.—On the motion of Mr. Alexander, leave was granted to register probato copy of the will of Henry Davis Snowdon. Probate was granted in the wills of John Miller, Samuel Bright, and Alex. Jack. R.M. COURT—FRIDAY. [Before Dr. Giles, B.M.] Judgment Summonses.—The following judgment summonses were dealt with :— John Mathieson v. H. E. Hanley : claim, £3 5s 6d. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made that he pay the amount claimed on or before May 6th, or undergo 21 days' imprisonment. W. C. Dennes v. W. Higgins: claim, £2 12s. There was no appearance of the defendant, who was ordered to pay the claim on or before May 6th, or suffer 21 days' imprisonment. F. G. Edmonds v. J. N. Reed : claim, £1 10s. Defendant did not appear, and an order was given that he pay 20s on or before May 6th, and the balance within 14 days from that date. W. E. Payne (City Council) v. Mre. Coyle : claim, £12 3s sd. By consent, defendant was ordered to pay £12 3s 5d by instalments of £3 per month. R. Rew v. Jos. Edye : claim, £3 14s Id. His Worship ordered the defendant (who did not appear) to pay the sum claimed by instalments of 10s per week. George Smith v. C. E. Madden : claim, £8 7s 2d. There was no appearance of defendant, and an order was made that he pay the amount of the claim by instalments of £1 a week. W. R. Franklin v. M. Martin : Claim, £22 15s. The evidence of defendant was taken, and he was ordered to pay the sum claimed by instalments of 5s a week. Jacobs and Co. v. N. Stafford : Claim, £2 os6d. Defendant was examined, but no order was made. Union Insurance Co. v. Geo. White: Claim, £31 Bs. Defendant was ordered to pay the sum claimed by instalments of £2 a week. Wm. Bulcraig v. J. Howe; Claim, £2 ss. Defendant was examined, but His Worship did not make an order. Geo. Bailey v. J. J. Dignan : Claim, £2 6s 6d. Payment within a fortnight was ordered, defendant to undergo in default three weeks' imprisonment. George Bros. v. Oldfield : Claim, £2 16s 6d. Defendant was ordered to pay, with an alternative of three weeks' imprisonment. Jno. Little v. W. Freeney : Claim, £2 16s. His Worship ordered that defendant pay the sum claimed within a fortnight, or undergo three weeks' imprisonment. G. A. Coles v. W. Freeney : Claim, £15s 6d. An order was granted that defendant pay within 14 days, the alternative being 14 days' imprisonment. Boardv. McCarthy: Claim,£2 12s. Evidence was given by defendant.but an order was not made. D. Gouk v. W. Hogg : Claim, £7 0s 6d. Payment was ordered within one month, or in default one month's imprisonment. C. H. Green v. N. Weston : Claim, £2 7s lid. Defendant was examined, but no order was made. S. Parker v. G. Weeks : Claim, £77 Bs. Payment of the debt within a month was ordered. F. W. Evans v. J. Armstrong : Claim, £2 7s 10d. Defendant did not appear, and His Worship ordered payment on or" before May 6th. J. Gibbs v. Grace : Claim, £2 15s 2d. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made that he pay the amount claimed within 14 days, or undergo three weeks' imprisonment. John W. Velvin v. J. H. Edmonds : Claim, £13 18s 4d. There was no appearance of defendant, who was ordered to pay the debt on or before the 6th May, with an alternative of six weeks' imprisonment; James Close v. Dowsing : Claim £2 ss. The evidence of defendant was heard, and the case was dismissed. John Gracie v. Clark: Claim £2 8s 10d. Payment was ordered by the 6th of May, or defendant to suffer imprisonment tor three weeks. Goodacre and Lees v. Peoheler : Claim £3 17s. Defendant gave evidence; no order was made. Milne and Choyce $. Mrs. Darnell; Claim £2 3s fld. Defendant was sworn, but her evidence was not satisfactory, and His Worship ordered that the debt be paid within a month, with an alternative of seven days' imprisonment. C. Jones v. Thomas Lynch : The evidence of defendant was taken, but no order was made. R. S. Sandall v. J. Murphy : Claim £5 13s lOd, The payment of the debt within a week was ordered, defendant to undergo iu default six weeks' imprisonment. Taylor and Co. v. J. H. Edmonds : Claim £9 15s 6d. There was no appearance of defendant, but evidence having been heard, His Worship ordered that £5 be paid within a month, and the balance on or before June 6th. POLIciTcOURT. —Friday. (Before Messrs. F. L. Prime and S. Y. Collins, J.P.'s] Drunkenness.—Two persons were punished for drunkenness. Alleged Assault.—Margaret Fitzgerald was charged with assaulting John Glynn by throwing a bottle at him. On the application oflnanector Broham, the case was remanded till Monday owing to the absence of the principal witness. A case of assault preferred against Margaret Davis by Anne Camier, was remanded till Wednesday, a medical certificate being produced in testimony of the plaintiffs being too ill to attend the Court. A crass action, in which Anne Camier was charged with assaulting Margaret Davis, was also remanded. Another Fruit-stealing Case. — Clement Edwards, Harry Searle, and Hugh McCoU, three respectable-looking lads, were charged with stealing melons, value 3s, the property of Ching Wong and other Chinamen. The defendants, who were not represented by counsel, pleaded guilty. Mr. Heeketh, who appeared for the complainants, said that the case was one of those with which the Court had been frequently troubled lately. The Chinese

gardeners in the city had been much harassed and annoyed by the depredations committed upon their property, and the only means they had of getting redress was by taking law proceedings. He understood that damages to the extent of £25 or £30 had been done to the Chinamen's gardens in Kyber Pass Road. Although, if they wished to thoroughly protect themselves, they could ask that the boys be imprisoned, the complainants did not wish to take this course, and they would be satisfied were a fine imposed and a sound whipping administered. The Bench pointed out that they could n<vi> order that boys over 14 should be whipped. In answer to Mr. Hesketh, the lads EIcColI and Searle said they were 15, and Edwards was 12 years of age. The parents of the boys McColl and Edwards were in Court, and addressed the Bench. Mr. McColl Ssiid he was exceedingly sorry that the case had occurred; his boy had not been previously before the Court, and he (Mr. McColl) trusted that the Bench would look leniently upon the offence, and he would guarantee that it would never occur again. Mr. Edwards said that his boy had acted at the instigation of older companions, and he hoped the Bench would overlook the offence. Mr. Hesketh said he could not agree to the overlooking of the offence. He pointed out that under Section 194, sub-section 2, of the Justices of the Peace Act, the Bench had power to inflict such a fine as would compensate the Chinaman for the damage and loss sustained. Their Worships said they did not think they could overlook the offence, and they imposed a fine of 20s and costs, and ordered them to pay the damage, whilst recommending theirparents to give them a sound whipping. Things had come to such a pass that offences of this character, when brought before the Court, should be dealt with with a strong hand. The costs were £6 6s. Alleged Larceny.—Sarah Home was charged with stealing £6 10s, the property of Michael Shea. Mr. Humphreys appeared for the prisoner. Michael Shea, bushman, residing at Whangapoua, near Coromandel, deposed that he arrived in Auckland on the Ist of April, in company with a mate named William Moore. He had then in his possession a purse with two £5 notes and two £1 notes, and some gold and silver, together money belonging to Moore. On thatday, about three o'clock in the afternoon, he went to the house of the accused in Chancery Lane, and saw Home and a woman named Kennedy there. Hu afterwards brought Moore to the house, and gave him money to " ehoufc," and liquor was brought to the house. Witness was at the Aurora Hotel at one o'clock, and his purse and money were then safe; and at Home's house, having given Moore £1, he also gave accused £1 to get drink. In the kitchen hr was lying on a sofa in a half-drunken state, when accused put her hand in witness's pocket and took hi« purse, with its contents. Accused took away the purse, and in a short time returned and put the purse again into hie pocket. A quarrel ensued shortly afterwards between prisoner and a woman named Wetherell, who was then in the house, and the latter said that she would "tell the man that prisoner had taken his money." In conseqnence of what this woman said, he examined his purse, and found that one of the £5 notes was missing ; and he proceeded to the police station and informed Detective Herbert of the occurrence. Witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr. Humphreys, and having admitted that he had taken the present proceedings from a motive of spite, the police withdrew the charge.